If anyone is interested, I'd like to explore the element of religion that's found within Buddhism. Religion is a subject that requires more sensitivity than most (for better or worse) so let's experiment here with how we discuss this topic with a minimum of tension and a maximum of beneficial fruit. Here are some suggestions that may help us have a fruitful conversation in a way that doesn't work the mod's last nerve.

1. As Ben often says: Play the ball, not the person.

2. Let emotional reactions rise and then fall away before responding - no matter how long that takes. The ball is just a ball...just a group of pixelated mind constructs. Let's take whatever time is needed before posting in order to do so without letting emotional reaction drive the ball. Let's sit with the ideas being responded to until they have no fire for us, then post.

3. If someone sees things differently, try on their view and explore it. Make a friend of it rather than react to it as a fast ball that needs to swatted back. Then compare the two views from that middle place before responding. There's plenty of time.

4. It's a good idea to read posts knowing that in an electronic forum it's nearly impossible to know the subjective mind-state of any poster or subjective energy of any post - it's good not to assume we know what emotional tone the post is fueled with, if any...t's too easy to project our own subjective reading onto other people's post. Read posts knowing that a misplaced comma or poorly constructed sentence in a post can result in several possible meanings, and that the slightest bit of attachment we hold will color what we read. Words are slippery, we all need to take great care to speak carefully, read carefully, analyze/comprehend carefully, respond carefully. It's useful to ask for clarification when we aren't clear what someone means.

5. Remember that we're all conditioned beings with dust bunny minds - we'll never be "right" so let's look at each other's view with curiosity and compassion, and as a gift. There isn't a view we hold that doesn't benefit from a good look at how other people see our view.

---

Let's not make this a discussion about whether Buddhism should be regarded as a religion or not. I'm more interested in why individuals choose a religious view of Buddhism, or why they don't. I'm not religious and haven't ever experienced Buddhism in any religious way so I'm naturally curious why other people do. I'm more interested in your personal view and experience, rather than what's good for the institution of Buddhism or society. My starting questions for those who engage with Buddhism as a religion are:

- What does the _concept_ of religion mean to you personally? How does the _idea_ of religion itself make you feel?

- How familiar are you with the history and origin of the idea of religion (the concept, not the phenomenon)?

- Why do you choose to engage with Buddhism as a religion rather than just as a body of valuable wisdom and practices?

- For you personally, what elements of Buddhism need to be viewed through the lens of "religion"?

- Is meditation inherently a religious activity?

- Is lovingkindness inherently a religious activity?

- Is generosity inherently a religious activity?

- Is compassion inherently a religious activity?

- Is death contemplation inherently a religious activity?

- Is a religious perspective necessary to understand and practice sila?

- Is a religious perspective necessary to understand kamma?

- Is the experience of clarity (both incremental and ultimate) a religious experience?

- If you hold a belief in rebirth: Is a religious perspective necessary in order to have a positive rebirth experience upon death of the body?

Please feel free to answer all or some of these questions...or to respond regarding the questions themselves. Thanks...looking forward to insight into your personal experience of religion and the religious mind-state.

Last edited by pink_trike on Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:26 am, edited 7 times in total.

Vision is MindMind is EmptyEmptiness is Clear LightClear Light is UnionUnion is Great Bliss

I just wanted to say from the outset that your "list of 5" is very good, and well worth reading. Aspects of them may even find their way into the Terms Of Service, or forum-specific guidelines, or pinned recommendations etc. at some point.

Metta,Retro.

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7

- What does the _concept_ of religion mean to you personally? How does the _idea_ of religion itself make you feel?

In my view, religion is a learned mind-form, consciously or unconsciously - a conceptual/emotional attachment regarding a group of ideas and the institutions that formed around those ideas. It is a valueless meme that's entwined itself into Buddhism. No idea or experience that Buddhism claims domain of is inherently "religious" in any way. All path and fruit are inherently religionless. Religion is a mental template that is applied to certain ideas, experiences, and the institutions of Buddhism. Religion is a chosen lens - a learned, preferred way of categorizing certain information and authority as separate and other that morphs into an entrenched state of emotionality at the individual level of perception - from which delusion and confusion arises. Religion cuts off parts of reality, packages and claims ownership of the parts, and rejects opposing views - an exercise in "this, not that" which always leads to attachment and aversion. Bliss, comfort, and certainty are common attachments that seem to arise from the attachment of religion. Looking directly at the mind-state of religiosity seems to be a common aversion.

I find this templated mind-form and accompanying states of emotionality to be an obscuring distraction, a seductive egoic defense mechanism that throws up a protective barrier against the deconstruction of the "self" and a clear view of just-what-is.

- How familiar are you with the history and origin of the idea of religion (the concept, not the phenomenon)?

Before religious institutions, which seem to have appeared in the human realm fairly recently, it would appear that there was no idea of religion. The idea of religion only seems to have emerged after humans start losing their direct relationship to the land, the earth, and the movements of the heavens. It would appear to be a degraded, compensatory mind-state, a way of trying to reclaim perceived lost integral-ness with the wholeness of reality - without taking the necessary steps to repair this tear in perception.

- Why do you choose to engage with Buddhism as a religion rather than just as a body of valuable wisdom and practices?

I don't. I choose to engage with Buddhism as a science, a practical psychology, and a way of life.

- For you personally, what elements of Buddhism need to be viewed through the lens of "religion"?

No essential elements of Buddhism need a religious perspective or emotionality in order to be beneficial.

- Is meditation inherently a religious activity?

no

- Is lovingkindness inherently a religious activity?

no

- Is generosity inherently a religious activity?

no

- Is compassion inherently a religious activity?

no

- Is death contemplation inherently a religious activity?

no

- Is a religious perspective necessary to understand and practice sila?

no

- Is a religious perspective necessary to understand kamma?

no

- Is the experience of clarity (both incremental and ultimate) a religious experience?

PT: In sum, I find the concept of religion and the mind-state of religiosity to be hinderances on the Dharma path.

Religiosity as you define it. Is that, however, the only definition available? It would also seem that if religiosity is as you define it, then we can chuck out most of the Pali texts, it would seem. I would like to see something from the anti-religious faction that defines religion in less than straw-man manner, which would require: If someone sees things differently, try on their view and explore it. Make a friend of it rather than react to it as a fast ball that needs to swatted back. Then compare the two views from that middle place before responding. There's plenty of time.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

PT: In sum, I find the concept of religion and the mind-state of religiosity to be hinderances on the Dharma path.

Religiosity as you define it. Is that, however, the only definition available? It would also seem that if religiosity is as you define it, then we can chuck out most of the Pali texts, it would seem. I would like to see something from the anti-religious faction that defines religion in less than straw-man manner, which would require: If someone sees things differently, try on their view and explore it. Make a friend of it rather than react to it as a fast ball that needs to swatted back. Then compare the two views from that middle place before responding. There's plenty of time.

The question specifically asks for a personal view of the concept of religion. Please point out where I implied that my definition is the only definition of religion. I invited you and others to share your personal understanding of the religion element of Buddhism - but you declined to share that. If you have a different definition, let's hear it.

Having been a consistent member of the Buddhist community for 3 decades, I've tried on the religionist view every way possible in an attempt to understand it. I've even worn it for long periods of time to see what it feels like. My response to the question isn't "reacting to a fast ball". However, your defining my understanding of religion as "straw dog" is of course an easy way to avoid thoughtfully hearing my perspective. Did you sit with my perspective before you responded? Did you make a friend of it? I ask because your response seems to be entirely focused on my view - and offers no clue to what you might think about religion after reflecting on my view. Your post appears to be an overly-sensitive reaction to my view of religion, not a thoughtful participation in a discourse about the concept of religion - which is what this thread is about.

Last edited by pink_trike on Mon Jun 08, 2009 2:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Vision is MindMind is EmptyEmptiness is Clear LightClear Light is UnionUnion is Great Bliss

PT: I hear your perspective fine, but what I am not hearing from you is any evidence that you have followed your own dictum: If someone sees things differently, try on their view and explore it. Make a friend of it rather than react to it as a fast ball that needs to swatted back. Then compare the two views from that middle place before responding. There's plenty of time. That you have done this and have done that for so many years is nice, but who knows what it means until you put it into words, which is to say, let us hear you carefully, accurately articulate a "religious" point of view that would be recognized and accepted as more or less accurate, reasonable by those who do hold such a religious point of view. By the criteria you set up, you need to do some serious heavy lifting here first.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

tiltbillings wrote:PT: I hear your perspective fine, but what I am not hearing from you is any evidence that you have followed your own dictum: If someone sees things differently, try on their view and explore it. Make a friend of it rather than react to it as a fast ball that needs to swatted back. Then compare the two views from that middle place before responding. There's plenty of time. That you have done this and have done that for so many years is nice, but who knows what it means until you put it into words, which is to say, let us hear you carefully, accurately articulate a "religious" point of view that would be recognized and accepted as more or less accurate, reasonable by those who do hold such a religious point of view. By the criteria you set up, you need to do some serious heavy lifting here first.

Ok, I hear you...you don't want to participate in these questions.

Since no one else has posted here, what was I supposed to explore and make friends with? To get the ball rolling in this conversation, it would have been helpful if you had answered the questions also. Then I could have sat and made friends with your view of religion. You didn't respond to the substance of my view of religion - you only complained that it is lacking something you want me to see and say - no sign of making friends with my view there. You find my definition lacking without posting yours. You used the tired old "straw dog" argument which should be banned. And I think you know that no productive dialogue can happen if you just grumble and snipe at my view. I did my share of lifting at this stage of this discourse...care to lend a productive hand?

Vision is MindMind is EmptyEmptiness is Clear LightClear Light is UnionUnion is Great Bliss

Since no one else has posted here, what was I supposed to explore and make friends with?

I have already said, but let me spell it out a bit further. You have gone on a some length about how the religious mind-set is - to use your expression - a valueless meme, but nowhere have you really defined what the religious mind set is, though have labelled it with a bunch of negatives, and nowhere have you shown us that you have actually followed your own dictum by giving us a characterization of the religious mind set that would more or less recognized as how many other might see it: If someone sees things differently, try on their view and explore it. Make a friend of it rather than react to it as a fast ball that needs to swatted back. Then compare the two views from that middle place before responding. There's plenty of time. All we are seeing here is your negativity. Give us something positive to work with.

It might worthwhile for you to show us that you actually have an understanding of what it is that you are characterizing so negatively.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

Since no one else has posted here, what was I supposed to explore and make friends with?

I have already said, but let me spell it out a bit further. You have gone on a some length about how the religious mind-set is - to use your expression - a valueless meme, but nowhere have you really defined what the religious mind set is, though have labelled it with a bunch of negatives, and nowhere have you shown us that you have actually followed your own dictum by giving us a characterization of the religious mind set that would more or less recognized as how many other might see it: If someone sees things differently, try on their view and explore it. Make a friend of it rather than react to it as a fast ball that needs to swatted back. Then compare the two views from that middle place before responding. There's plenty of time. All we are seeing here is your negativity. Give us something positive to work with.

It might worthwhile for you to show us that you actually have an understanding of what it is that you are characterizing so negatively.

You may have overlooked that the purpose of this thread as requested in the OP was to find out more about why some people choose to engage with Buddhism with a religious view and why some don't. The topic is not about any particular definition of religion - you've cherrypicked that one question out of the entire post, and ignored the central question of the post.

I'll take your concern more seriously after you've posted your view of the concept of religion and answered the questions. You've read mine, presumably took time to make friends with it, but haven't responded from that middle ground. You've hijacked the thread. You're clearly responding from a defended position...I'm not interested in playing at that level, thanks.

Last edited by pink_trike on Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Vision is MindMind is EmptyEmptiness is Clear LightClear Light is UnionUnion is Great Bliss

I'll take your concern more seriously after you've posted your view of the concept of religion and answered the questions. You've read mine, presumably took time to make friends with it, but haven't responded from that middle ground. You've hijacked the thread. You're clearly responding from a defended position...I'm not interested in playing at that level, thanks.

Nice try, but it really is incumbent upon you to do the real first heavy lifting here, rather than start out, as you do, with a highly negative view and then expect others to "befriend it" when you have shown absolutely no evidence you have actually done so with the point of view you are as negatively rejecting. Let see your middle ground and let us see how you got to it. We have seen in this thread your criticism, let us see you put your words into action. That would be worth really looking at. What your opening msgs give us is much the same things, expecting others to do the work. Let us see if you have actually done it.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

pink_trike wrote:Mods, could you please close this thread. It's been hijacked. Thanks.

Let us see what other moderators will do. Obviously I'll recuse myself here, but following your msg #1 and your msg #2, I am simply asking you first to do what you are asking others to do here: If someone sees things differently, try on their view and explore it. Make a friend of it rather than react to it as a fast ball that needs to swatted back. Then compare the two views from that middle place before responding. There's plenty of time.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

tiltbillings wrote: If someone sees things differently, try on their view and explore it. Make a friend of it rather than react to it as a fast ball that needs to swatted back. Then compare the two views from that middle place before responding.

No ill will intended.......Unless I got it wrong, this is your quote. PT presented his view in the first post. He has requested that you present your views. If that quote is used as a guide, the thread might go further and be of more interest.

Steve

Hi Hoo,

The quote is mine. I included it in the OP as one of 5 guidelines that we can use to facilitate tensionless dialogue while we engage in this thread. It's being used to shut down and hijack the dialogue.

Vision is MindMind is EmptyEmptiness is Clear LightClear Light is UnionUnion is Great Bliss

tiltbillings wrote: If someone sees things differently, try on their view and explore it. Make a friend of it rather than react to it as a fast ball that needs to swatted back. Then compare the two views from that middle place before responding.

No ill will intended.......Unless I got it wrong, this is your quote. PT presented his view in the first post. He has requested that you present your views. If that quote is used as a guide, the thread might go further and be of more interest.

Steve

It is PT's quote, and it is not a bad way to do things, but if you look at PT's first two msgs, there is no reason that he cannot show us first hand his own actual response to this issue rather than putting out a negative point of view and expecting other to respond to it, to make friend with it and all. That is making other do heavy lifting, which fairly PT should really do first. Let us first see how he made friends and all with the religious point of view that he so obviously finds problematic, and from there we can expand on this subject with our own explorations.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

pink_trike wrote:I'm more interested in why individuals choose a religious view of Buddhism, or why they don't.

Please define what you mean by "a religious view". If you don't define your terms, we'll all just end up talking past each other. Without this much, the rest of your questions don't make much sense. Is meditation a religious activity? Is chanting? Is making toast? It depends on how you define "religious".

pink_trike wrote:I'm not religious and haven't ever experienced Buddhism in any religious way so I'm naturally curious why other people do.

Oh really? Let's see...

pink_trike wrote:Religion is a chosen lens - a learned, preferred way of categorizing certain information and authority as separate and other that morphs into an entrenched state of emotionality at the individual level of perception - from which delusion and confusion arises. Religion cuts off parts of reality, packages and claims ownership of the parts, and rejects opposing views - an exercise in "this, not that" which always leads to attachment and aversion. Bliss, comfort, and certainty are common attachments that seem to arise from the attachment of religion. Looking directly at the mind-state of religiosity seems to be a common aversion.

Why on earth would anyone who feels they "choose a religious view" care to respond to what is clearly not curiosity but rather venomous hatred and contempt? It is as if I wandered into a food forum and asked "All of you deluded fools who like coffee, please explain to me why you drink something so awful."

retrofuturist wrote:I just wanted to say from the outset that your "list of 5" is very good, and well worth reading.

That list has it's merits, but not when it's used to defend the posting of unprovoked insults.

pink_trike wrote:In my view, religion is ... a conceptual/emotional attachment regarding a group of ideas

Might another way of saying this be... one meets an admirable person and finds confidence in that person grows? And that such confidence leads one to listen what that admirable person has to teach? And that such confidence leads one to further investigate and explore those teachings? to put them into practice? Even though one has not yet seen for himself the results of those teachings, he pursues them and develops them due to the confidence his has in his teacher. Wouldn't that be another way of describing a "conceptual/emotional attachment regarding a group of ideas" aka religion?

MN 95 wrote:When, on observing that the monk is purified with regard to qualities based on greed, qualities based on hatred, and qualities based on delusion, he places conviction in him. With the arising of conviction, he visits him & grows close to him. Growing close to him, he lends ear. Lending ear, he hears the Dhamma.

tilt wrote:Religiosity as you define it. Is that, however, the only definition available? It would also seem that if religiosity is as you define it, then we can chuck out most of the Pali texts, it would seem.

It would seem to me as well, such as the above quote form the Canki Sutta. But then...

Not in the least. It is being used to get you to show us how you put it into action. It is only fair that you do the first heavy lifting here.

Sniping and grumbling without providing one's own view is counter-productive and defensive.

Hardly sniping, hardly grumbling. Simply asking you to do first, you are asking others here to do. It is only fair. After that I'll be happy to provide, at excruciating length if you wish, my points of view. First, however, let us see you put into action what you are asking others to do here.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.